1. Title, director and release year?
“World in the Balance: China Revs Up,” Chris Schmidt, 2004
2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
- China’s growing affluence and its toll on pollution
- what affects China’s environment has an effect on the environment of the world
- the Chinese are emulating the American lifestyle and some say we can’t deny them of that
- obsession with consumption
- consequences of population growth
3. What sustainability problems does the film draw out?
- air pollution traveling across the ocean to the US from China
- “invisible poisons”
- lack of pollution control during one of the country’s largest industrial revolutions
- Chinese cars produce more pollution because of their antiquated methods of production and emission controls
- the need for jobs is affecting the country’s ability to regulate
- any land usable for farming is being exhausted and farmed inefficiently
- some areas have water shortage, others have mass floods due to deforestation
- the use of hydrogen cells and hybrid cars, although sustainable while in operation, have not yet found sustainable ways of manufacturing
4. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
- famine = rebellion
- China used to say they couldn’t afford to regulate their outputs, now they can’t afford not to
- relationship between affluence and pollution (Kuznets Curve)
- a form of population control: taxing larger families
- China is in need of better jobs
5. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by?
- Shi Lihong’s urge to rationalize her family’s need to buy a car. If people are well aware of the consequences, then why are they still buying cars? Drastic regulatory measures should be taken with dramatically high taxes on cars in order to shock people into understanding the self-inflicted penalties to not only their own health but their country and the planet as a whole.
- the 4x4 club (really?) in a country that has so many issues with pollution; why are these clubs, dedicated to wasting resources for leisure and contributing to the pollution, allowed to exist and operate?
6. What additional information does this film compel you to seek out? Where do you want to dig deeper and what connections do you want to make with other issues, factors, problems, etc.?
Will someone step in to regulate China’s production, emissions, and rates of pollution? Does anyone have the authority to do so? 7. What audiences does the film best address? What kind of imagination is fostered in viewers? Do you think the film is likely to change the way viewers think about and act on environmental problems?
Although many of us are aware that China is a large and ever-growing country, it was a good wake up call to see just how much damage is being done with very little objection. The movie urges us that this has been a growing issue for more than 20 years. How could it have possibly gone on this long without being contested?
8. What kinds of action or points of intervention are suggested by the film?
There was mention of “public outcry and media coverage,” but it seems that Chinese environmentalists are going to have to step up their game from “bothered observer” status to “proactive voices.” Also, perhaps intervention on the global scale is necessary to put a stop to the overwhelming amount of pollution.
9. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?
There were only brief mentions of the medical complications associated with living in China, maybe some more graphic coverage would help in relaying a stronger message and the need for change.
“World in the Balance: China Revs Up,” Chris Schmidt, 2004
2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
- China’s growing affluence and its toll on pollution
- what affects China’s environment has an effect on the environment of the world
- the Chinese are emulating the American lifestyle and some say we can’t deny them of that
- obsession with consumption
- consequences of population growth
3. What sustainability problems does the film draw out?
- air pollution traveling across the ocean to the US from China
- “invisible poisons”
- lack of pollution control during one of the country’s largest industrial revolutions
- Chinese cars produce more pollution because of their antiquated methods of production and emission controls
- the need for jobs is affecting the country’s ability to regulate
- any land usable for farming is being exhausted and farmed inefficiently
- some areas have water shortage, others have mass floods due to deforestation
- the use of hydrogen cells and hybrid cars, although sustainable while in operation, have not yet found sustainable ways of manufacturing
4. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
- famine = rebellion
- China used to say they couldn’t afford to regulate their outputs, now they can’t afford not to
- relationship between affluence and pollution (Kuznets Curve)
- a form of population control: taxing larger families
- China is in need of better jobs
5. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by?
- Shi Lihong’s urge to rationalize her family’s need to buy a car. If people are well aware of the consequences, then why are they still buying cars? Drastic regulatory measures should be taken with dramatically high taxes on cars in order to shock people into understanding the self-inflicted penalties to not only their own health but their country and the planet as a whole.
- the 4x4 club (really?) in a country that has so many issues with pollution; why are these clubs, dedicated to wasting resources for leisure and contributing to the pollution, allowed to exist and operate?
6. What additional information does this film compel you to seek out? Where do you want to dig deeper and what connections do you want to make with other issues, factors, problems, etc.?
Will someone step in to regulate China’s production, emissions, and rates of pollution? Does anyone have the authority to do so?
7. What audiences does the film best address? What kind of imagination is fostered in viewers? Do you think the film is likely to change the way viewers think about and act on environmental problems?
Although many of us are aware that China is a large and ever-growing country, it was a good wake up call to see just how much damage is being done with very little objection. The movie urges us that this has been a growing issue for more than 20 years. How could it have possibly gone on this long without being contested?
8. What kinds of action or points of intervention are suggested by the film?
There was mention of “public outcry and media coverage,” but it seems that Chinese environmentalists are going to have to step up their game from “bothered observer” status to “proactive voices.” Also, perhaps intervention on the global scale is necessary to put a stop to the overwhelming amount of pollution.
9. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?
There were only brief mentions of the medical complications associated with living in China, maybe some more graphic coverage would help in relaying a stronger message and the need for change.